In the news recently, we saw how finally the FDA authorized over-the-counter sales of the "morning after pill," which must be taken within 72 hours of sex. Since there was some chance that this worked after conception (though often it could very well act to prevent it), some saw it as some sort of "abortion pill." All the same, "regular" birth control pills can work the same way.
The pill was accepted by a 23-4 vote a year or two before, but it was held up for political/religious reasons. In part by the pressure of the lady senators of NY and WA, this violation of privacy rights and women well being was finally ended, though the final solution left a bit to be desired, including sales limited to pharmacies.
The importance of this over the counter rule was shown by a recent attempt by a woman in Ohio -- who could not take birth control pills regularly because of health reasons -- to get a prescription (the over the counter rule kicking in Jan.). Now, Bush did win Ohio (not by too much, and a few might question even that), but it is not exactly Mississippi. All the same, she was SOL in her attempt during the designated period, particularly since it fell on the weekend.
People didn't supply "abortion pills" (which are actually RU-486, which is used up to the second month). They asked her personal questions such as the one in the subject line. She had to defend herself ("I have three children, I don't want a fourth"). And so forth.
This is the meaning of an anti-choice, anti-woman's rights world. Many pharmacists want to have a right not to supply such drugs, apparently wanting to know why they are prescribed (there are health reasons in some cases). I honestly find this possibly acceptable if there are alternative places to go (I live within walking distance of quite a few pharmacies), but apparently this is a bit naive of me overall.
On the front lines of an anti-choice world. You can care for your body, if we agree with your reasons. This after all is the land of the free. This is NOT just about abortion.